Pages

Friday, December 07, 2012

Hoping for the lost

Does
Calvinism oblige you to withhold hope in your child’s salvation?

Now
imagine that the topic is salvation. Should you hope that Jones is of the elect
or of the reprobate? That all depends on whether you have reason to believe
Jones is of the elect or of the reprobate. If you have no evidence that Jones
is of the elect or the reprobate then you ought to withhold hope that he is
ultimately of the elect or reprobate.

The
argument as applied to the salvation of Jones depends on the Calvinist view
that God is the primary determining cause of human election to salvation or
reprobation combined with the belief that human beings ought not will contrary
to what God wills. Thus, if God wills to be the primary determining cause of
Jones’ reprobation then we ought not will other than what God willed.

This is
not a problem for Arminianism because on the Arminian view God’s will is that
all be saved and it is the determining cause of the human being to reject God’s
salvific offer that is the primary determining cause of one’s reprobation.
Thus, on the Arminian view the wish that Jones would be saved is a wish that
Jones would act in accord with God’s universal salvific divine will. This is
very different from the Calvinistic view according to which the wish that Jones
would be saved is a wish that Jones would act in a way which may be contrary to
God’s particular salvific divine will.

Now
let’s replace the generic “Jones” with your daughter or son, your spouse or
parent. It would follow that insofar as you do not have reason to believe your
daughter or son, your spouse or parent is elect, that you ought not hope for
their election. This, I would think, is a problem for Calvinism.

I’m
impressed by how many bad arguments Rauser can squeeze into four paragraphs.
That’s quite an accomplishment, albeit a rather dubious accomplishment.

i) It is
wrong to assume a God’s-eye viewpoint unless we actually enjoy a God’s-eye
viewpoint. That’s presumptuous. Since we don’t know God’s will in the case of
any particular individual, we’re in no position to will contrary to God’s will
for that individual. We don’t know enough to oppose God’s will.

If God
wills his salvation, and we withhold “hope,” then one could just as well argue
that that’s opposing God’s will.

ii) Even
from an Arminian standpoint, Christians often pray for things that God won’t
grant. They don’t know ahead of time if it’s God’s will to grant their request.
By Rauser’s logic, Christians should never pray for something unless they know
in advance that God wills it.

iii)
Keep in mind, too, that from a decretal perspective, if we did will (wish,
hope) contrary to God’s will, that’s only because God willed us to will
contrary to his will. If I hope for someone’s salvation, God predestined me to
hope for someone’s salvation. So at one level, that can never be inconsistent
with God’s (decretive) will.

iv)
There’s also an equivocation here. God “willing” something and my “willing”
something don’t mean the same thing. In the context of this discussion, God’s
will is synonymous with predestination, whereas our will is synonymous with
wishing that something was the case. These can’t be set in direct opposition,
for they are not the same thing.

iv)
Since God is God and man is man, there’s no reason to think God requires us to
feel the same way about the lost that he does. We are human. We have a
viewpoint suited to our humanity. And God made us that way. He created us to
have emotional attachments. And some people are naturally dearer to us than
others.

v)
Rauser artificially abstracts predestination from providence. But they are
coordinated. Our prayers can factor into the outcome. Friendship evangelism can
factor into the outcome. The predestined result doesn’t necessarily or even
normally occur apart from what we do, or neglect to do, for the lost.

vi) Apropos
(v), we have more reason to “hope” for what we work for (e.g. friendship
evangelism) and pray for, than if we’re talking about some random
unbeliever in the phone book.

Likewise,
we wouldn’t pray for somebody’s salvation in the first place, or practice
friendship evangelism, unless we wish for their salvation. And prayer is a way
of aligning our will with God’s will. We submit our desires to God, trusting in
his superior wisdom to either grant our request or refuse our request.

vii)
“Hope” is standardly defined as a wish, feeling, or desire, combined with
confidence, anticipation, or expectation of its fulfillment.

But
according to Arminianism, God’s universal saving desire doesn’t result in the
salvation of anyone in particular. Therefore, it would be irrational to expect
that God will save Jones.

Indeed,
there are Arminians who think most human beings are hellbound, based on their
understanding of Mt 7:13-14. How can you expect or confidently anticipate that
Jones will be saved if only a fraction of humanity will be saved?

viii)
Rauser oscillates between “wishing” and “hoping,” as if these are synonymous.
But at best that’s equivocal, and at worst that’s a bait-n-switch. For “hoping”
means more than “wishing.”

3 comments:

I've noted this before, but Rauser doesn't seem to understand the basic Calvinistic distinctions regarding the Will of God. See this article by R.C. Sproul

1. God's Will of Decree (also called God's secret or hidden will) whereby He positively ordains all that *has*, *does* or *will ever* come to pass. This is often called the secret or hidden will of God because we don't know it until it comes to pass (or unless he reveals it in advance).

2. God's Will of Demand or prescriptive, or preceptive will of command which is what God has revealed in Revelation (which is finally and supremely set forth in Scripture) regarding what He requires and expects of us.

3. God's Will of Desire or dispositional will which describes what (all things being equal) His attitude is regarding a matter and what pleases Him.

Some Calvinists will say that there is ultimately only one will of God (and in God). But even those who say that usually allow for the above distinctions as we finite creatures attempt to understand and apply God's singular will.

Btw, as a continuationist, I also believe in God's Will of Direction (or directional will) whereby God sometimes directs us to choose a certain course of action or decision. It's uncommon/infrequent, but it happened in Biblical times and (I believe) happens during post-Biblical times too. I can give examples in both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic lives.

As Steve has pointed out, Rauser doesn't understand that God's decretive will is something we don't know and (because of that) aren't supposed to base our prayers and expectations on. Rather, we're supposed to base it on God's Will of Demand and Will of Desire (i.e. #2 and #3). I'm writing this primer on God's Wills in case Rauser reads this blog. That way he'll finally represent Calvinism accurately in the future.